Literature DB >> 17148400

Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence.

John Skelhorn1, Candy Rowe.   

Abstract

Avian predators learn to avoid defended insects on the basis of their conspicuous warning coloration. In many aposematic species, the level of chemical defence varies, with some individuals being more defended than others. Sequestration and production of defence chemicals is often costly and therefore less defended individuals enjoy the benefits of the warning signal without paying the full costs of chemical production. This is a fundamental theoretical problem for the evolutionary stability of aposematism, since less defended individuals appear to be at a selective advantage. However, if predators sample aposematic prey and selectively reject individuals on the basis of their chemical investment, aposematism could become evolutionarily stable. Previous research aimed at testing whether birds can use taste to discriminate between palatable and unpalatable prey has been confounded by other experimental factors. Here, we show that birds can taste and reject prey entirely on the basis of an individual's level of chemical defence and more importantly, they can make decisions on whether or not to consume a defended individual based upon their level of chemical investment. We discuss these results in relation to the evolution of aposematism, mimicry and defence chemistry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17148400      PMCID: PMC1686200          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0483

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Lett        ISSN: 1744-9561            Impact factor:   3.703


  12 in total

Review 1.  Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera.

Authors:  Ritsuo Nishida
Journal:  Annu Rev Entomol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 19.686

2.  Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour.

Authors:  Thomas N Sherratt; Michael P Speed; Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2004-05-21       Impact factor: 2.691

3.  Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry?

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-02-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: predator sample-and-reject behaviour may provide a solution.

Authors:  Gabriella Gamberale-Stille; Tim Guilford
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Defensive secretions of arthropods.

Authors:  T Eisner; J Meinwald
Journal:  Science       Date:  1966-09-16       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  SURVIVAL OF DISTASTEFUL INSECTS AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY NAIVE BIRDS: A REAPPRAISAL OF THE THEORY OF APOSEMATIC COLORATION EVOLVING THROUGH INDIVIDUAL SELECTION.

Authors:  Christer Wiklund; Torbjörn Järvi
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  Plant poisons in a terrestrial food chain.

Authors:  L P Brower; J van Brower; J M Corvino
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1967-04       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Differences and similarities in cardenolide contents of queen and monarch butterflies in florida and their ecological and evolutionary implications.

Authors:  J A Cohen
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 2.626

9.  FORAGING DYNAMICS OF BIRD PREDATORS ON OVERWINTERING MONARCH BUTTERFLIES IN MEXICO.

Authors:  Lincoln P Brower; William H Calvert
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  Economics of chemical defense in chrysomelinae.

Authors:  M Rowell-Rahier; J M Pasteels
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 2.626

View more
  25 in total

1.  The evolutionary stability of automimicry.

Authors:  Thomas Owens Svennungsen; Oistein Haugsten Holen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Disentangling taste and toxicity in aposematic prey.

Authors:  Øistein Haugsten Holen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Does avian conspicuous colouration increase or reduce predation risk?

Authors:  M Ruiz-Rodríguez; J M Avilés; J J Cuervo; D Parejo; F Ruano; C Zamora-Muñoz; F Sergio; L López-Jiménez; A Tanferna; M Martín-Vivaldi
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Chemical defense across three trophic levels: Catalpa bignonioides, the caterpillar Ceratomia catalpae, and its endoparasitoid Cotesia congregata.

Authors:  Evan C Lampert; Lee A Dyer; M Deane Bowers
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2011-09-24       Impact factor: 2.626

5.  The signal detection problem of aposematic prey revisited: integrating prior social and personal experience.

Authors:  Liisa Hämäläinen; Rose Thorogood
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Birds learn to use distastefulness as a signal of toxicity.

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Meta-analysis of tadpole taste tests: consumption of anuran prey across development and predator strategies.

Authors:  Jennifer L Stynoski; Katherine Porras-Brenes
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 3.298

8.  Condition dependence in biosynthesized chemical defenses of an aposematic and mimetic Heliconius butterfly.

Authors:  Anniina L K Mattila; Chris D Jiggins; Marjo Saastamoinen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 3.167

9.  Meta-analytic evidence for quantitative honesty in aposematic signals.

Authors:  Thomas E White; Kate D L Umbers
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Warning displays may function as honest signals of toxicity.

Authors:  Jonathan D Blount; Michael P Speed; Graeme D Ruxton; Philip A Stephens
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-03-07       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.